> a new language is just changing the syntax used to represent those same concepts.
I can think of two counter examples for this.
First, Lisp with its meta-programming is completely unlike any other language that doesn't support such concepts. No programming I did(In C-like languages) ever prepared me for something like Lisp.
Secondly, Haskell with laziness, immutability and a powerful type system is completely unlike any other mainstream language out there. You would struggle to even begin to express your programs in Haskell if you are not familiar enough with it. Imperative code and Haskell code are almost always completely different. If you have some experience with imperative languages, most of that experience would translate over to other imperative languages. However, an extremely small portion of my imperative language experience translated over to Haskell.
I can think of two counter examples for this.
First, Lisp with its meta-programming is completely unlike any other language that doesn't support such concepts. No programming I did(In C-like languages) ever prepared me for something like Lisp.
Secondly, Haskell with laziness, immutability and a powerful type system is completely unlike any other mainstream language out there. You would struggle to even begin to express your programs in Haskell if you are not familiar enough with it. Imperative code and Haskell code are almost always completely different. If you have some experience with imperative languages, most of that experience would translate over to other imperative languages. However, an extremely small portion of my imperative language experience translated over to Haskell.